If you're doing your job at 100%, and then doing more than you are required to do, you certainly can do it 120%. Conversely, if you spend 6-7 hours per day blogging,for example, you're probably doing your job at 50%.

I don't see the problem with the statement, but I am sure she will be picked apart for it.

So a woman who grew up midle class and has as an adult lived a life of privlege and wealth is an expert on all things poverty and struggling families.

The crooners at the Washington Post would have a great time pointing out the idiocy of all this if they could fall out of love long enough to get a taste of reality.

I still find it amazing that her pay nearly tripled after her Senator husband earmarked a large sum for her employer, and nobody thinks this even merits a look.

Anyway, my chief of staff and personal assistants are waiting for me with 600.00 shoes I sent them out to buy. We're going to a soup kitchen to handle a few ladels, then we'll sit back and wait for the fawning coverage.

I hate that sort of idiom. 100% is the whole. There can be no more. It's like asking someone to rank something from 0-10, and they say eleven. Or twelve. It only goes up to ten. Is it that hard of a concept?

"I hate that sort of idiom. 100% is the whole. There can be no more."Not necessarily true. It is not unusual, for instance, to have a piece of machinery that is designed to normally operate within a certain range (aka 0-100%) that can be run at >100% for short periods of time. Running it too long at >100% will likely result in spectacular failures that will not only be hazardous to the machines health but anyone standing nearby.

Used to be, "giving more" topped out somewhere around the 110 percent mark. But over the past few decades, many players and coaches have finally come clean -- 110 percent is simply not enough. Not nearly enough.

120 percentHall of Fame linebacker Bobby Bell, on his former coach, Hank Stram: "That's all he asked, to give him 120 percent out there." (The Kansas City Star, July 5, 2005)

Central Maryland Youth Football League player Justin Wood, 12, on his coach, Larry Athen: "You taught us kids what it means to be a team player and try your hardest --120 percent." (The Baltimore Sun, Jan. 16, 2005)

Yes, I really hate that too. Whenever someone tells me they're giving me 110%, I always demand to know "why not 125%?". When they agree, I bump it to 150%. And on and on until they realize how silly they sound.

As to Michelle, she is just a celebrity by marriage and she is fine as "first lady," but I am amazed by her effortless conceit. She must have been insufferable to work with.

President Obama is similar. If you listen to him, it is always "I" this and "I" that. He is somewhat smoother than Michelle.

The egos are amazing among most politicians and many of their wives. I shake my head at Elizabeth Edwards, after being a willing accomplice on perpetrating a fraud on the American people, now thinks the people should read her book "Resilliance" [sp?] and that she should bring Oprah down to her 28,000 square foot mansion to talk to the American people. How does she even get the idea in her mind that she should do that?

Then I saw the piece of the interview where John Edwards is there with his same cheesy smile saying nothing with the best possible phony sincerity. He said that he did not change a word of Elizabeth's book. Whether he did or not is not of great significance, but there is no reason in the world to believe him when he says that or, for that matter, when he says anything else.

If Mrs. Obama had said she strives to work at 120% of her ability, I would agree that's patently absurd. I don't think that's what she said.

I thought lawprof2 covered this point extremely well, but here's my oversimplified take: Let's say you're hired to make 100 high-quality widgets a day. But, hard worker that you are, you strive to make 120 high-quality widgets a day. Isn't that working at 120%?

(Now, whether it's a good idea to make 120 widgets a day instead of 100 when there's no bonus or commission involved is something I'll leave to somebody else.)

If you're doing your job at 100%, and then doing more than you are required to do, you certainly can do it 120%.

That's not what Michelle said. Michelle said "If I'm not - doing any – doing any job at 120%".Unless the first lady is breaking the laws of physics (making something out of nothing) by way of magic or some other unknown Althouse is right.

Something cannot be done at 120%. Manny has tried and Manny has failed ;)(see baseball)

Why is this news? She says nothing that isn't already known and really offers no solutions to something that isn't solveable anyway. The Government isn't always the answer to everything Michelle.

People can chose to work one job, two jobs or more in a family. It all depends on the lifestyle you want to have and the lifestyle you want your children to have.

Families with stay at home parents make trade offs. No new cars. Less travling. No new flat screen tvs. Smaller homes. Rent instead of buying. Nothing new here.

Flexible working arrangments are usually available and there is already the family leave act. But we know what her real agenda is. The same as Obama. Unionize EVERYTHING. Just look what is happening in California and the Home Care Worker's UnionSo..... for the sake of a few union workers. Obama is willing to bankrupt the entire State of California. I believe that those tactics are generally called EXTORTION when used by individuals in crime families. Community organizers like Jesse Jackson and now the President of the US use extortion as a tool.

Get used to it people. We, the self employed and non unionized working, are getting reamed and no vaseline.

Sounds like they want to have the government subisdize the 120 percenters and all the Union lackys so they can have all the toys.

I don't feel the need to subsidize somebody else's life style.

I guess I'm just being foolish. I too, should jump on the Union gravy train. Quit my business and let the rest of you support me. Me...ME....ME

This is reminiscent of Caroline Kennedy's remark about having to work twice as hard if you're a Kennedy. I think it behooves people with substantial material advantages to be twice as modest as those less blessed.

FLS, that series of quotes shows exactly why this particular bit is so irritating. She is certainly not the only person who uses the “110 percent (*now inflated to 120), but it makes the whole concept meaningless.

Alexey Grigoryevich Stakhanov was a miner in the Soviet Union, Hero of Socialist Labor (1970), and a member of the CPSU (1936). He became a celebrity in 1935 as part of a movement that was intended to increase worker productivity and demonstrate the superiority of the socialist economic system.

In 1933, Stakhanov became a jackhammer operator. In 1935, he took a local course in mining. On 31 August 1935, it was reported that he had mined a record 102 tons of coal in 5 hours and 45 minutes (14 times his quota). His example was held up in newspapers and posters as a model for others to follow, and he even appeared on the cover of Time Magazine.

Yes, because everyone knows you can just sit around the house and do nothing when you have kids. It isn't work, that's for sure..

Mrs. Hoosier doesn' have a whole lot of sympathy for the stay at home mom's whine 'it isn't easy being home with the kids' considering she works a full time job and still has to find the time to do the same 'homework' as Suzie Homemaker.

It's just a clumsy euphemism for going above and beyond. She's failing Original Thought class, that's for sure.

Hoosier Daddy - Believe me you it's not the same housework. When your house is empty 40 - 50 hours a week and someone else is feeding your kids two meals a day, it's not the same housework. After 6 years of staying home with the kids, I am LOVING the break in housework now that I've been working again. Not that there aren't balance issues...but that particular working mom whine annoys me.

Believe me you it's not the same housework. When your house is empty 40 - 50 hours a week and someone else is feeding your kids two meals a day, it's not the same housework..

No? Maybe your housework differs from ours but my kid still needs breakfast and dinner while school takes care of lunch, the laundry still needs to be done, the garbage taken out, grocery shopping, cleaning and what not.

The point my wife makes is that being a stay at home mom isn't the 'chore' it's made out to be.

I still find it amazing that her pay nearly tripled after her Senator husband earmarked a large sum for her employer, and nobody thinks this even merits a look.The main reason nobody thinks this merits a look is that this never happened.

Michelle Obama was promoted to VP of the U of C Hospitals and Clinics in May, 2005; Sen. Obama requested a $1 million earmark to expand the hospitals in 2006.

Secondary reasons for not caring are:

The earmark was never granted.

The hospital had a good reason to ask for the money: They were giving more free care to more patients, which overtaxed their facilities.

Obama asked for larger sums for other hospitals, none of which employed his wife, but who were actually in competition with his wife's employer.

Believe me you it's not the same housework. When your house is empty 40 - 50 hours a week and someone else is feeding your kids two meals a day, it's not the same housework. After 6 years of staying home with the kids, I am LOVING the break in housework now that I've been working again. Not that there aren't balance issues...but that particular working mom whine annoys me.

I have had the ability to stay at home, granted for a very short period of time, with my child and experienced the working life as well.

I call bullcrap on your contention that there is less housework if you are working outside of the home. Except for lunches and snacks provided at a day care facility, there is just as much work and a whole lot less time to do it in. Children don't use less clothing, the toilets don't need to be cleaned any less, the floors mopped, the house dusted and vacuumed.

Plus the working mom doesn't have the luxury of time to spend with the children that a stay at home mom has. Yes there are balance issues when you put your children first (as you should!!). The house doesn't get as sparkling clean, the garden doesn't get taken care of, hobbies? what are those.

When you are commuting for 2 hours a day and working for 9 (including mandatory lunch hour) that doesn't leave a working mom much time for anything but work work work.

My schedule as a working mom: Up at 5am. Pre dinner preparation for the evening. Breakfast and get my daughter ready to drop off at a friend who could then take her to day care which didn't open until 8am. Drive to work 1 hour. Work from 8 to 5. Drive an hour home. Pick up my daughter from day care or my friend's house at 6 pm. Home by 6:30 Make dinner. Do the laundry. Clean the kitchen. General house cleaning. Pick up toys. In between also trying to spend some quality time with my child reading together or playing games. Bed time, bathing. teethbrushing and more reading by 8pm at the latest for her. Spend a few hours studying for my licenses to advance my career. Bed by 10 or 11pm.

And at a later age....homework from school and help with her studies with a later bedtime. Lunch packing in addition to breakfast. Driving too and from sports, 4H and after school activities.

Then on the weekends. Play dates, spend time with my child. Bill paying. Grocery shopping. Yard work, mowing, pruning. Try to squeeze in the big chores that need to be done once a month or so. Mopping, oven cleaning, bathroom cleaning, window cleaning, refrigerator cleaning.

Yeah. Life was just a bowl full of cherries. Working moms have it easy.

Let me give you a legal example, and I will speak slowly for you Kirk.

Property tax assessments occasionally exceed 100% of fair market value. Thus, a property with a fair market value of $100,000, assessed at 120%, will be assessed at the rate of $120,000 times the mill rate.

If a job requires someone to produce 100 items, or generate 100 briefs, or bill 100 hours, and the person does 120 of any of those, that person is entitled to state that he or she is working at 120%.

It's not a pissing contest because that wouldn't be fair. I would win.

Gender advantage. :-)

Jennifer the point is not whether a house gets messier with a stay at home mom vs a working mom but that same tasks are required for both. For the former, homemaker tasks are all she has to focus on. For the latter they are in addition to a 8-5 job.

I can't believe intelligent people have such a problem with a basic math concept.

Of course, if there is a quantified goal, one can achieve more than 100% of the goal.

But just as obviously, a person cannot give more than 100% of the person's effort, which is what Michelle was talking about.

Finally, Michelle apparently is a person who thinks a great deal of herself and who is not hesitant to brag. I would be inclined to say so what? But, the liberal press puts her on such a pedestal it is a bit hard to take her self aggrandizement.

But a messier house requires more cleaning, Hoosier Daddy. Especially when the gender advantaged are peeing in your house twice as often, and somehow missing the target twice as often. lol

Look, my experience has been that I spend significantly less time cleaning as a working mom than I did as a stay at home mom. And my house feels cleaner. Maybe my standards are lower. Maybe having my husband pitching in more (when he's here) is the lion's share of the difference. Or, maybe only cleaning the bathrooms once a week and doing the floors twice a week really does require half as much time as doing all that twice as often. Maybe not having three times as many clothes to wash because your kids aren't running through the sprinkler or painting up a storm while in school helps.

Jennifer the point is not whether a house gets messier with a stay at home mom vs a working mom but that same tasks are required for both. For the former, homemaker tasks are all she has to focus on. For the latter they are in addition to a 8-5 job.

Well, not really. There's the whole parenting task to focus on during the 8-5.

There doesn't need to be a competition. My problem with Michelle and her husband is they seem focused on making life easier for one group, at the possible expense to both (or every) group.

Universal pre-k, longer school years, help with daycare costs all benefit families with two workers, while costing all tax payers a boatload.I'd prefer they think the best thing they can do for families- all families- is to keep taxes low so people can make the choice about what works for their family.

She is a bit full of herself. That, with Ger's comment at 10:42 AM about "spectacular failures," brings to mind the old definition of a blivet: 10 pounds of manure in a 5-pound bag. In her case, 6 pounds, to make the math come out right.

I'm certainly not inclined to rake her over the coals over this. And I agree with those here who have stated that, in some circumstances, it is possible to exceed 100%.

I do, however, have a problem with this idea that "If I'm not doing any job at 120 percent, I think I'm failing." I hope she said that in a self-deprecating manner, because in my view it's a character flaw. Again, I'm not raking her over the coals about this, because I think it's a common character flaw.

You show me someone who is doing a job at 120%, and I'll show you something who is either neglecting other obligations or missing out on greater opportunities.

Kansas City said..."Finally, Michelle apparently is a person who thinks a great deal of herself and who is not hesitant to brag."

Oh, give me a break.

The woman was merely telling the audience that one should strive to do even more than is required.

I was in sales and was a sales manager for years and pushed myself and others in exactly the same way.

I was also a jock throughout high school and college and every successful athlete I ever met constantly pushed themselves and their teammates to do more than was required, whether it be in the weight room, on the field or court.

Tiger Woods, during a tournament, will follow up a round by hitting over 1,000 practice balls...and you can bet your ass he's striving to do push his game past the 120% level.

This is just another inane and thoroughly infantile means of finding literally ANYTHING to denigrate Michelle Obama.

I find it rather sad...especially coming from the likes of a law professor's blog site.

"In most families, both parents have to work, and even if people want to make the choice to stay home. And again, there is no subjective analysis or -- of what is better. But people can't make the choice. It's even harder for single parents...

She's failing logic too. Two parent families have no choice both parents have to work. That goes double for single parent families.

Personally I'll take instant karma over subjective analysis any day.

* * *

mcg -- I agree. I think she was trying to build rapport with the audience and no more than that. She made a number of self-deprecating remarks about having a personal staff before the 120% comment.

mcg said..."I do, however, have a problem with this idea that "If I'm not doing any job at 120 percent, I think I'm failing."

She's probably been an overachiever her entire life. It's not unusual at all.

I would venture to say there are very few CEO's of major corporations who do not feel exactly the same way and do feel that if they're not doing more than what is expected, they're failing. That's how they became CEO's.

"Yes, because everyone knows you can just sit around the house and do nothing when you have kids. It isn't work, that's for sure."

Well, you *can* sit around the house and do nothing. Of course you can.

I do have to agree with Jennifer, though. It's not the same housework if everyone is gone all day than if everyone is home. (The house also doesn't use as much power or water not having lights on and toilets flushed.) That's assuming that actual cleanliness is measured and not total number of times a week any particular chore is done.

I do think that the stay-at-home whine about it being such hard work is (mostly) bogus. But it's also true that for many women, working outside of the home is a sanity saver. It's *restful*. Particularly if dealing with pre-school ages where, while it's not *hard*, it requires constant attention and doing any sort of chore means doing it with only half-attention on the chore.

The absolutely best thing about staying at home is being able to do shopping and errands during the day instead of during the most crowded times after work when you're tired. There's a lot of freedom with that, and a whole lot with not having to be on a school's schedule or on the boss's schedule.

The main reason nobody thinks this merits a look is that this never happened.

Michelle Obama was promoted to VP of the U of C Hospitals and Clinics in May, 2005; Sen. Obama requested a $1 million earmark to expand the hospitals in 2006.It's all in the timing. Right? If the payoff came before the earmark, no problemo, eh?

The most amazing thing about all the idolatry is the Obots' incredibly high tolerance level for corruption and conflict of interest.

Tiger Woods, during a tournament, will follow up a round by hitting over 1,000 practice balls...and you can bet your ass he's striving to do push his game past the 120% level.

I would definitely classify this as an improper use of the 120% idiom. When Tiger is hitting 1000 practice balls, he's not doing 120%. He might be doing closer to 100% than his competitors, but he's not exceeding 100%.

The difference is that in a competitive arena there really isn't such a thing as "just enough". Tiger has to push himself all the time because there is always someone else threatening to beat him. If he gives 98% and someone else gives 99%, he loses. There is no 120% in that situation.

The same can be said in many work situations. Sure, there might be clear standards for minimum performance, but if you are competing for a promotion or a merit raise, the minimum is not your baseline.

In contexts like that, talking about giving 120% is nothing but a figure of speech and cannot be interpreted literally.

There are, however, contexts where it is possible to overachieve, where it is possible to do more than 100%, and it is in those instances where striving for more has questionable value.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that someone gives "110%", or "120%", or whatever. It is a normal way of saying that the person gives more than expected.

But I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who describes HERSELF that way. In my experience there is very little overlap between the people who really bust their asses to get things done, and the people who TALK about how they're busting their asses to get things done. The people who refer to themselves that way are usually better at self-promotion than they are at doing their jobs.

I like pretty much exactly half of what she wears; the other half is hideous.

The people who refer to themselves that way are usually better at self-promotion than they are at doing their jobs..

Exactly. The 120% is a phrase that is irritating, but nobody is saying it isn't common. It's the "I'm so awesome" that bugs a bit, and that's probably because everybody has somebody like that in their office (like my former coworker who would complain about her wrist, while staying an hour late to type up a list into excel that I could have (and offered to) run and stuck in Excel in about 5 minutes. Yet, she thinks she's the one working hardest!).

From a Chicago Tribune article that the USA Today article links to, they paid Michelle right in the middle of all their VPs:

According to a tax return released by the senator this week, the promotion nearly tripled her income from the hospitals from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962 in 2005.Hospitals spokesman John Easton said Obama’s salary was in line with the compensation received by the not-for-profit medical center’s 16 other vicepresidents.A tax return for the hospitals covering the 12 months ended June 30, 2005,shows most of the organization’s vice presidents earning between $291,000 and $362,000.

Blessings on Dear Leader and his lovely wife, as they plunder the US for their own enjoyment.

They won!

"shows most of the organization’s vice presidents earning between $291,000 and $362,000."So that's where all the health care money's been goin!Them health care VPs, why, we'd be in a world a hurt without 'em.

I mean my God!, University of Chicago Hospital only had 16 ....sixteen!!1! vice presidents. And Dear Michelle was "Executive Director for Community Affairs". Oooooh, that's worth way more than a paltry $317K per year, especially for someone doing Community Affairs work.

I mean, it's a back-breaking job, especially when you give it 120%! Give that woman a raise!! I apologize for the criticism; I never realized what essential health care work she was doing. Why, in the private sector, they prob'ly get paid a half-million easy.

Yeah, DBQ, I'm choosing to ignore that type of comment. The sad thing is, the rest of us are capable of having an unemotional conversation about phrasing and idiots who post 15 times in a row keep mucking it up. Sad.

The request was the payoff.And you don't see at least the appearance of impropriety?Then why didn't Obama ask for $10 billion for the hospital? He wouldn't have gotten it either, but according to you it's the thought that counts, not the execution.

Appearance of impropriety:

Would Obama's wife's employer have been better off had they gotten the $1 million to help build the new pavilion? Yes. But they could have achieved the same result by turning away sick people who couldn't pay.

Did Obama single the U of C out for special favorable treatment? No. Was his request objectively reasonable? Considering that the ROI on a facility in which to dispense free medical care is zero, I think so.

Revenues for patient care at the University of Chicago Medical Center were more than $869 million. In addition, the Medical Center is one of the largest providers of uncompensated care in Illinois and provides millions of dollars in unreimbursed care every year.

The Medical Center and the University are the largest employers on the South Side of Chicago. The Medical Center has approximately 9,500 employees, many of whom live in the Hyde Park area. Care is provided by more than 700 attending physicians--most are full-time University faculty members--620 residents and fellows, and more than 1,000 nurses.

The medical center last month also confirmed a massive restructuring that will trim $100 million in expenses, or nearly 7 percent of its annual budget...

Madara last month would only confirm the elimination 15 senior executive jobs, including vice president for community and external affairs, a position that had been held by First Lady Michelle Obama, a former medical center vice president. Her duties have been taken over by Dr. Eric Whitaker, a friend of her husband, President Barack Obama, and executive vice president for strategic affiliations and external affairs.

A source close to the medical center said some staff cuts and hour reductions could affect outreach that has involved U. of C. specialists working at public health clinics throughout the South Side."

As a communist you have a finely tuned racist detector - it must be a wonderful gift to be able to see racism where there is none.

MO is still an ugly cunt, but she's your ugly cunt. I know, I have insulted cunts by calling her one, but by the same token, I have insulted fine communists by calling you one. Trotsky is turning over in his grave.

I don't mind Michelle. And I think she's better looking than Barry. I like her best if I don't listen to what she says about anything. As someone or other pointed out, the 120% "thing" is just mindless sports rhetoric. It's about as brain dead and content free as any other sports interview.

"And, as usual, the "pack" here represents the 20-30% of America who share such views."

It's not at all surprising that conservatives and libertarians have a bit of "Monk" in them. It's the "think" vs. "feel" divide. And it goes right along with this silly assertion that it ought to *matter* what percentage of the population agrees with any particular sentiment. That's illogical and a person who puts value in holding the majority opinion because it is the majority opinion is irrational.

"Obama won, you and your horribly inept team of McCain/Palin lost...get the fuck over it."

All that time, he could have been turning out white papers on fire safety community outreach, and making shiny pamphlets about diversity in the FD ranks, or raising awareness about the struggles of gay and lesbian firefighters, or minority fire victims and the need for greater funding.

Whatta doofus. Just a hero, when he coulda been a vice president for community and external affairs, givin' 120% every day, and nothin' less.

And boy is it fun watching you people lose your frigging minds over it.

We've got people whining about Michelle's 12o% comment, elHombre is very, very, very upset over an earmark, Dust Bunny & Shanna have decided to attack Michelle because of the clothes she wears or for being too full of herself, Pogo is upset because he can't get a fucking job and Obama has one, NKVD (really a regular hiding out) has decided to taint the forum with racist, misogynistic and thoroughly disgusting comments about our First Lady, and of course, we have the regular crybabies, Fen and the Cuban Cigar heaving the standard "messiah" insults at our President.

It's not at all surprising that conservatives and libertarians have a bit of "Monk" in them. It's the "think" vs. "feel" divide. And it goes right along with this silly assertion that it ought to *matter* what percentage of the population agrees with any particular sentiment.

That's not really a left/right thing. It seems like every time one of the religious arguments starts up, one of the local conservatives argues that belief in God can't be irrational because it is so widespread.

I am suspicious of people who feel the need to tell everybody else how hard they work. In my work experience, they are usually lying.Absolutely correct. If they really worked all that hard they would not have time to talk about it.

There is a woman in my office who spends approximately 4 hours per day walking around making sure everyone knows that she is "busting her ass".

I personally think we should give Michelle a break. I don't think everything she says has to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. So she says silly things now and again. First Lady is not an elected position and she doesn't seem to involve herself in policy like a Roslyn Carter. At least as far as I can tell. I am inclined to cut her a break.

I just want her to wear clothes that I can sell in my store. I did really well out of that Donna Ricco she wore on the View. That dress body is very popular and a proven winner. She needs to wear some more of them because I just brought in a bunch of dresses for the spring and she would look great in them. Especially the Donna Ricco Collection which are gowns that are pricer but also dressier and a good choice for formal occasions. They don't have the status of a Michael Kors or a Tadashi but if she wears Donna Ricco Collection to a State dinner or two I would start printing money. Just Sayn'.

The notion is hilarious that MO was a "120 per center" at that cush high paying job with the U of Chicago that was not even filled when she left. I realize it is how the world works. He was a rising political star. They were minorities.

But, it still make you shake your head seeing that she has the gall in her bubble to brag about herself and that her supporters here insult our intelligence about how hard she worked and how much she accomplished.

"That's not really a left/right thing. It seems like every time one of the religious arguments starts up, one of the local conservatives argues that belief in God can't be irrational because it is so widespread."

It's a poor argument in any case.

Also, to the extent that belief in God is based on Faith (and must be) it is sort of *technically* irrational... if we figure what the word means and skip the unnecessary prejudicial baggage attached to it.

Then why didn't Obama ask for $10 billion for the hospital? He wouldn't have gotten it either, but according to you it's the thought that counts, not the execution. Etc., etc.

Let me recommend "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, The use of Reason in Everyday Life,"

The parable of the quid pro quo:

elHombre was a bright little boy, but lazy, and as a consequence his grades were mediocre, except for Spelling, in which he always got an A.

To motivate the young lad, his father, whom we will call elPapa, proposed that if elHombre got three times as many As, i.e. three As, elPapa would take him to a Yankees game. "Yippy!" cried the young elHombre with glee, put away his comic books, and began to apply himself to his studies.

Sure enough, diligence was rewarded, and elHombre received As in Art and Penmanship, as well as Spelling. He raced over to elPapa with his report card, pleased that he had fulfilled his part of the bargain.

"Excellent, mihijo," cried elPapa. "Someday, I'll try to get tickets to a Yankees' game. But not this year."

"That's OK!" cried the little tyke. "The promise of a reward is sufficient."